Sammanfattning: “Peer-to-peer technologies have made filesharing a very popular activity, but while governments try to counter its impact, arguing it will decrease the amount of creative works produced this paper suggest the opposite. Peer-to-peer technologies effectively lower the barriers of creative production and distribution thus increasing the amount of creative innovations available. However as this technology also makes many of the current business models obsolete, new models must be created. The paper proposes that those models can be found by studying the open source development process where value is created on the edge of the commons of intellectual production by centering on the total user experience.” (Page 1).

Slutsatser: "1) Production is consumption, 2) Value is based on uploads not downloads, 3) Revenue is created not at the center but on the edge of production, 4) Connectivity not content is king, 5) Copyleft is more relevant than copyright, 6) Open Source Development is a general production process." (Page 8).

Nu - Stabilo Boss

"The 14:th of March 2000 Justin Frankel posted on the Internet a piece of open source software called Gnutella. (...) He not only utilizes the potential of Internet neutral design he also demonstrates how this technology differs from all the previous communication. With Gnutella it came obvious how the Internets neutral design would allow creativity and innovation to reside on the edges of the network outside of a big company and corporate control how ill tuned the contemporary business models was to digital technology. (...) Gnutella turned every computer on which it was installed into both a server and a client. This way Gnutella eliminated the class system and made all computers and all computer users equal. (...) Thus the idea of peer-to-peer computing demonstrated to the public what Internet was originally designed to be: an exchange of information among people on the same level." (Page: 1 & 2).

"This simple principle sets the Internet apart from every other communications network. For example, it is different from the switched telephone network that is made up of relatively stupid edges, your phone, and a smart network, complicated switches at the center. The same thing applies to television and radio broadcasting. (...) The intelligence is in the broadcaster itself. It is a system of control where the network owner decides what the network should carry. Internet on the other hand does not enable control. Here barriers to entry are low and nondiscriminatory." (Page: 2).

Open Source Business Models: “When we say “open source” we are speaking of the right to copy, distribute, modify, and redistribute software code”. (…) However open source processes also undercuts the conventional business logic in the sense that property in open source is configured fundamentally around the right to distribute, not the right to exclude. One of the most obvious points is that suppliers cannot generate significant income from selling undifferentiated copies of a digital product because freedom of redistribution would move the market price toward the marginal cost of reproduction, which is asymptotically zero. Even so, faced with this dilemma a growing number of business models, configured around open source, have in recent years become very successful, thus indicating that a good business model in a networked economy simply is the one that succeeds in creating additional value on the edge of the commons of intellectual production. For example companies like Red Hat, SuSe, Debian, Caldera, VA Linux, TurboLinux, Conectiva and Covalent make their money essentially by tailoring open source software to the specific needs of their customers. The customers don’t have to pay for the software itself but pay for the knowledge, services and added features provided by these companies. Hence, what the customers are really paying for is the reliability and convenience that comes from dealing with a trusted partner. "(Mer info, se sidan 3 – 4. Ett "case" med Red Hat tas upp) (..) "Hence, copyleft, the opposite of copyright, paradoxically protect Red Hats competitive advantages……" (Page 3 & 4).

"As digital technology continues to reduce the cost of production, more content will be produced thus growing the demand for convenient information filters such as brands and search engines." (Page: 5).

"The really interesting thing however, is how that money is made. Google like Red Hat has built its revenues not by being at the center, but on the edge of intellectual production. Almost nothing that Google displays is produced by itself. And what holds for Google might also hold for the entertainment industry." (Page: 5).

"Internet as a platform for advertising is starting to look ever more attractive. In Sweden alone online advertising, mostly thanks to Google, is growing with 44%. (…) When Ross Levinsohn, chief executive for News Corp online ventures, comments on how MySpace will pay for the investment by News Corp he says: You’ll see us morphing from a content company into a marketing company”. When people produce all their content themselves, News Corp will be the switchboard sitting on the edge of intellectual production connecting the blurring distinction between artist and users in a positive feedback loop while collecting revenues from selling advertising space to those people who want to catch the public eye." (Page: 5).

"Interestingly those shipped Macintosh computers also indicates that making money from uploads - not downloads, is where the future of the entertainment industry might be heading". (Page 7).

"What this effectively means is that Apple through its brand, hardware, software and multiple distribution channels has created a switchboard connecting the blurring distinction between professional artists, programmers and amateurs in a positive feedback loop thereby leveraging the potential of peer-to-peer production just like Red Hat and IBM." (Page 8).